9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the specific provision in Rule 4A of STR, 1994, the rejection of refund on the ground of not mentioning the address of the service recipient is not sustainable in law. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of time bar - Held that:- No doubt, the Notification gives the discretionary power to the Original Authority to condone the delay provided there is justification for the delay. The Original Authority have considered the application filed by the appellant seeking condonation but declined to condone the delay on the ground that no sufficient reason was given in the application seeking condonation except saying that due to unavoidable reason, the delay occurred. Since, there was no proper justification for the delay, therefore reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. -do- 97,831/- The refund claim referred in SI. No. 1 above was rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that the address of the service recipient is not mentioned in the invoice (i.e. Duplicate Receipt) and that the invoices does not appear to be raised in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4A of the STR, 1994. 2.1. The appellants submits that the said refund in Serial No.2 was rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that there was delay in filing the claim application within stipulate time of one year from the date of payment of Service Tax. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication before the lower authority. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that as far as rejection of refund of ₹ 1,57,622/- is concerned, both the authorities have wrongly rejected this refund on the ground that the address of the service recipient is not mentioned in the invoice. Further, the appellant has produced before me invoices subsequently issued by the service provider wherein the address of the service recipient is mentioned. Moreover, as per the proviso to Rule 4A itself provides that in the case of financial institutions , the address of the service recipient is not required but this provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
